Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:35:34 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote: wrote: On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 09:27:06 GMT, "Dutch" wrote: wrote On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:08:10 GMT, Rudy Canoza If animals had the same rights as humans it wouldn't prevent them being killed by our lifestyles - just as humans are - but some could be saved. Animals are not killed "just as humans are", not even remotely. They are for oil as in Iraq. They are not, evasive little bitch angie girl. The deaths are not comparable, angie girl, and you know it. Why? But your mention of the human deaths is anyway a logical fallacy. YOU are accused, rightly, of needlessly participating in animal slaughter, and it won't do for you to point the finger at your accuser and try to redirect the accusation back at him. YOU need to answer for YOUR needless participation in animal slaughter, evasive little bitch angie girl. How? Animals are killed systematically, deliberately and in great numbers with very little effort to mitigate their suffering, except in the case of livestock. Human deaths are rare by comparison, and great efforts are taken to avoid them. Yes, we could save some animals from being killed, but there's no particular reason why we should choose to save the ones we use for food and other useful products. Lets have some specifics in detail. Let's have a meaningful question, evasive little bitch angie girl. Which? You're contradicting yourself above. He didn't contradict himself at all, angie girl. Yes. So we all kill animals and humans and that's why your argument is crap. That is a lame response. Not at all; it's fact. It's a lame response, evasive little bitch angie girl. First of all, it's a logical fallacy - a _tu quoque_. Rather than address the legitimate accusation of hypocrisy against you, instead you attempt to accuse your accuser. That in no way exonerates you. Secondly, the basis for your _tu quoque_ fallacy is bogus. The human deaths and animal deaths are not comparable, as I have shown but which you have avoided addressing. Yet you keep trying your invalid defense. In what way? This is what I mean when I say you can't defend your phony "belief" in "ar". You don't really believe it; all you do is pay empty lip service to it. Which one? Angus Macmillan www.roots-of-blood.org.uk www.killhunting.org www.con-servation.org.uk All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed; Second, it is violently opposed; and Third, it is accepted as self-evident. -- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and abouttime too!
self-marginalized angie girl wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:35:34 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: self-marginalized angie girl wrote: On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 09:27:06 GMT, "Dutch" wrote: wrote On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:08:10 GMT, Rudy Canoza If animals had the same rights as humans it wouldn't prevent them being killed by our lifestyles - just as humans are - but some could be saved. Animals are not killed "just as humans are", not even remotely. They are for oil as in Iraq. They are not, evasive little bitch angie girl. The deaths are not comparable, angie girl, and you know it. Why? See my earlier explanation. But your mention of the human deaths is anyway a logical fallacy. YOU are accused, rightly, of needlessly participating in animal slaughter, and it won't do for you to point the finger at your accuser and try to redirect the accusation back at him. YOU need to answer for YOUR needless participation in animal slaughter, evasive little bitch angie girl. How? However you feel is appropriate, angie girl. You claim animal slaughter is wrong, yet you participate daily in processes that have animal slaughter as an inherent feature. Your abrasive condemnation thus makes you a hypocrite. Animals are killed systematically, deliberately and in great numbers with very little effort to mitigate their suffering, except in the case of livestock. Human deaths are rare by comparison, and great efforts are taken to avoid them. Yes, we could save some animals from being killed, but there's no particular reason why we should choose to save the ones we use for food and other useful products. Lets have some specifics in detail. Let's have a meaningful question, evasive little bitch angie girl. Which? There's that snarky, unserious, sophomoric angie-girl bullshit again... You're contradicting yourself above. He didn't contradict himself at all, angie girl. Yes. No, angie girl, he didn't. So we all kill animals and humans and that's why your argument is crap. That is a lame response. Not at all; it's fact. It's a lame response, evasive little bitch angie girl. First of all, it's a logical fallacy - a _tu quoque_. Rather than address the legitimate accusation of hypocrisy against you, instead you attempt to accuse your accuser. That in no way exonerates you. Secondly, the basis for your _tu quoque_ fallacy is bogus. The human deaths and animal deaths are not comparable, as I have shown but which you have avoided addressing. Yet you keep trying your invalid defense. In what way? Every time you try your snarky, sophomoric _tu quoque_, angie girl. We know what you're doing with your snarky, unserious questions, angie girl. Do you think you're "winning" by doing this? This is what I mean when I say you can't defend your phony "belief" in "ar". You don't really believe it; all you do is pay empty lip service to it. Which one? You're really a sophomoric unserious little ****, angie girl. But we knew that a long time ago. It's why you can't even *begin* to try to defend your incoherent pseudo-ethical beliefs. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 19:35:40 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote: self-marginalized angie girl wrote: On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:35:34 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: self-marginalized angie girl wrote: On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 09:27:06 GMT, "Dutch" wrote: wrote On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:08:10 GMT, Rudy Canoza If animals had the same rights as humans it wouldn't prevent them being killed by our lifestyles - just as humans are - but some could be saved. Animals are not killed "just as humans are", not even remotely. They are for oil as in Iraq. They are not, evasive little bitch angie girl. The deaths are not comparable, angie girl, and you know it. Why? See my earlier explanation. Where? But your mention of the human deaths is anyway a logical fallacy. YOU are accused, rightly, of needlessly participating in animal slaughter, and it won't do for you to point the finger at your accuser and try to redirect the accusation back at him. YOU need to answer for YOUR needless participation in animal slaughter, evasive little bitch angie girl. How? However you feel is appropriate, angie girl. You claim animal slaughter is wrong, yet you participate daily in processes that have animal slaughter as an inherent feature. Your abrasive condemnation thus makes you a hypocrite. Why? Animals are killed systematically, deliberately and in great numbers with very little effort to mitigate their suffering, except in the case of livestock. Human deaths are rare by comparison, and great efforts are taken to avoid them. Yes, we could save some animals from being killed, but there's no particular reason why we should choose to save the ones we use for food and other useful products. Lets have some specifics in detail. Let's have a meaningful question, evasive little bitch angie girl. Which? There's that snarky, unserious, sophomoric angie-girl bullshit again... In what way? You're contradicting yourself above. He didn't contradict himself at all, angie girl. Yes. No, angie girl, he didn't. Yes. So we all kill animals and humans and that's why your argument is crap. That is a lame response. Not at all; it's fact. It's a lame response, evasive little bitch angie girl. First of all, it's a logical fallacy - a _tu quoque_. Rather than address the legitimate accusation of hypocrisy against you, instead you attempt to accuse your accuser. That in no way exonerates you. Secondly, the basis for your _tu quoque_ fallacy is bogus. The human deaths and animal deaths are not comparable, as I have shown but which you have avoided addressing. Yet you keep trying your invalid defense. In what way? Every time you try your snarky, sophomoric _tu quoque_, angie girl. How? We know what you're doing with your snarky, unserious questions, angie girl. Do you think you're "winning" by doing this? Winning what? This is what I mean when I say you can't defend your phony "belief" in "ar". You don't really believe it; all you do is pay empty lip service to it. Which one? You're really a sophomoric unserious little ****, angie girl. But we knew that a long time ago. It's why you can't even *begin* to try to defend your incoherent pseudo-ethical beliefs. I have defended my position many times. If you haven't the intelligence to comprehend I suggest you ask some ten-year-old to help you. Angus Macmillan www.roots-of-blood.org.uk www.killhunting.org www.con-servation.org.uk All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed; Second, it is violently opposed; and Third, it is accepted as self-evident. -- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and abouttime too!
self-marginalized angie girl, demonstrating her
complete lack of serious purpose, wrote: On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 19:35:40 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: self-marginalized angie girl wrote: On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:35:34 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: self-marginalized angie girl wrote: On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 09:27:06 GMT, "Dutch" wrote: wrote On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:08:10 GMT, Rudy Canoza If animals had the same rights as humans it wouldn't prevent them being killed by our lifestyles - just as humans are - but some could be saved. Animals are not killed "just as humans are", not even remotely. They are for oil as in Iraq. They are not, evasive little bitch angie girl. The deaths are not comparable, angie girl, and you know it. Why? See my earlier explanation. Where? In the thread, angie girl. Why do you think it's cute to do that, angie girl? It demonstrates your bad faith and lack of serious purpose, angie girl. But your mention of the human deaths is anyway a logical fallacy. YOU are accused, rightly, of needlessly participating in animal slaughter, and it won't do for you to point the finger at your accuser and try to redirect the accusation back at him. YOU need to answer for YOUR needless participation in animal slaughter, evasive little bitch angie girl. How? However you feel is appropriate, angie girl. You claim animal slaughter is wrong, yet you participate daily in processes that have animal slaughter as an inherent feature. Your abrasive condemnation thus makes you a hypocrite. Why? Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl. Animals are killed systematically, deliberately and in great numbers with very little effort to mitigate their suffering, except in the case of livestock. Human deaths are rare by comparison, and great efforts are taken to avoid them. Yes, we could save some animals from being killed, but there's no particular reason why we should choose to save the ones we use for food and other useful products. Lets have some specifics in detail. Let's have a meaningful question, evasive little bitch angie girl. Which? There's that snarky, unserious, sophomoric angie-girl bullshit again... In what way? Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl. You're contradicting yourself above. He didn't contradict himself at all, angie girl. Yes. No, angie girl, he didn't. Yes. No, angie girl, he didn't. So we all kill animals and humans and that's why your argument is crap. That is a lame response. Not at all; it's fact. It's a lame response, evasive little bitch angie girl. First of all, it's a logical fallacy - a _tu quoque_. Rather than address the legitimate accusation of hypocrisy against you, instead you attempt to accuse your accuser. That in no way exonerates you. Secondly, the basis for your _tu quoque_ fallacy is bogus. The human deaths and animal deaths are not comparable, as I have shown but which you have avoided addressing. Yet you keep trying your invalid defense. In what way? Every time you try your snarky, sophomoric _tu quoque_, angie girl. How? Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl. We know what you're doing with your snarky, unserious questions, angie girl. Do you think you're "winning" by doing this? Winning what? Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl. This is what I mean when I say you can't defend your phony "belief" in "ar". You don't really believe it; all you do is pay empty lip service to it. Which one? You're really a sophomoric unserious little ****, angie girl. But we knew that a long time ago. It's why you can't even *begin* to try to defend your incoherent pseudo-ethical beliefs. I have defended my position many times. You haven't, angie girl. You've done nothing but blabber away with snarky and sophomoric idiocy, regularly demonstrating your bad faith and lack of serious purpose. It's all you *can* do, angie girl, because you don't have the ability to examine your stance and defend it. It's not even a stance, angie girl - it's a pose. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 22:08:03 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote: self-marginalized angie girl, demonstrating her complete lack of serious purpose, wrote: On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 19:35:40 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: self-marginalized angie girl wrote: On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:35:34 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: self-marginalized angie girl wrote: On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 09:27:06 GMT, "Dutch" wrote: wrote On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:08:10 GMT, Rudy Canoza If animals had the same rights as humans it wouldn't prevent them being killed by our lifestyles - just as humans are - but some could be saved. Animals are not killed "just as humans are", not even remotely. They are for oil as in Iraq. They are not, evasive little bitch angie girl. The deaths are not comparable, angie girl, and you know it. Why? See my earlier explanation. Where? In the thread, angie girl. Which post. Why do you think it's cute to do that, angie girl? It demonstrates your bad faith and lack of serious purpose, angie girl. No it doesn't. I'm just winding up a daft troll. But your mention of the human deaths is anyway a logical fallacy. YOU are accused, rightly, of needlessly participating in animal slaughter, and it won't do for you to point the finger at your accuser and try to redirect the accusation back at him. YOU need to answer for YOUR needless participation in animal slaughter, evasive little bitch angie girl. How? However you feel is appropriate, angie girl. You claim animal slaughter is wrong, yet you participate daily in processes that have animal slaughter as an inherent feature. Your abrasive condemnation thus makes you a hypocrite. Why? Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl. How? Animals are killed systematically, deliberately and in great numbers with very little effort to mitigate their suffering, except in the case of livestock. Human deaths are rare by comparison, and great efforts are taken to avoid them. Yes, we could save some animals from being killed, but there's no particular reason why we should choose to save the ones we use for food and other useful products. Lets have some specifics in detail. Let's have a meaningful question, evasive little bitch angie girl. Which? There's that snarky, unserious, sophomoric angie-girl bullshit again... In what way? Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl. How? You're contradicting yourself above. He didn't contradict himself at all, angie girl. Yes. No, angie girl, he didn't. Yes. No, angie girl, he didn't. Yes So we all kill animals and humans and that's why your argument is crap. That is a lame response. Not at all; it's fact. It's a lame response, evasive little bitch angie girl. First of all, it's a logical fallacy - a _tu quoque_. Rather than address the legitimate accusation of hypocrisy against you, instead you attempt to accuse your accuser. That in no way exonerates you. Secondly, the basis for your _tu quoque_ fallacy is bogus. The human deaths and animal deaths are not comparable, as I have shown but which you have avoided addressing. Yet you keep trying your invalid defense. In what way? Every time you try your snarky, sophomoric _tu quoque_, angie girl. How? Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl. Where? We know what you're doing with your snarky, unserious questions, angie girl. Do you think you're "winning" by doing this? Winning what? Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl. You're winning that by a mile :-)) This is what I mean when I say you can't defend your phony "belief" in "ar". You don't really believe it; all you do is pay empty lip service to it. Which one? You're really a sophomoric unserious little ****, angie girl. But we knew that a long time ago. It's why you can't even *begin* to try to defend your incoherent pseudo-ethical beliefs. I have defended my position many times. You haven't, angie girl. You've done nothing but blabber away with snarky and sophomoric idiocy, regularly demonstrating your bad faith and lack of serious purpose. It's all you *can* do, angie girl, because you don't have the ability to examine your stance and defend it. It's not even a stance, angie girl - it's a pose. Why not? Angus Macmillan www.roots-of-blood.org.uk www.killhunting.org www.con-servation.org.uk All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed; Second, it is violently opposed; and Third, it is accepted as self-evident. -- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and abouttime too!
self-marginalized angie girl, demonstrating her
complete lack of serious purpose, wrote: On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 22:08:03 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: self-marginalized angie girl, demonstrating her complete lack of serious purpose, wrote: On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 19:35:40 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: self-marginalized angie girl wrote: On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:35:34 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: self-marginalized angie girl wrote: On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 09:27:06 GMT, "Dutch" wrote: wrote On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:08:10 GMT, Rudy Canoza If animals had the same rights as humans it wouldn't prevent them being killed by our lifestyles - just as humans are - but some could be saved. Animals are not killed "just as humans are", not even remotely. They are for oil as in Iraq. They are not, evasive little bitch angie girl. The deaths are not comparable, angie girl, and you know it. Why? See my earlier explanation. Where? In the thread, angie girl. Which post. Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl. Why do you think it's cute to do that, angie girl? It demonstrates your bad faith and lack of serious purpose, angie girl. No it doesn't. Yes, it does, angie girl. But your mention of the human deaths is anyway a logical fallacy. YOU are accused, rightly, of needlessly participating in animal slaughter, and it won't do for you to point the finger at your accuser and try to redirect the accusation back at him. YOU need to answer for YOUR needless participation in animal slaughter, evasive little bitch angie girl. How? However you feel is appropriate, angie girl. You claim animal slaughter is wrong, yet you participate daily in processes that have animal slaughter as an inherent feature. Your abrasive condemnation thus makes you a hypocrite. Why? Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl. How? Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl. Animals are killed systematically, deliberately and in great numbers with very little effort to mitigate their suffering, except in the case of livestock. Human deaths are rare by comparison, and great efforts are taken to avoid them. Yes, we could save some animals from being killed, but there's no particular reason why we should choose to save the ones we use for food and other useful products. Lets have some specifics in detail. Let's have a meaningful question, evasive little bitch angie girl. Which? There's that snarky, unserious, sophomoric angie-girl bullshit again... In what way? Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl. How? Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl. You're contradicting yourself above. He didn't contradict himself at all, angie girl. Yes. No, angie girl, he didn't. Yes. No, angie girl, he didn't. Yes Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl. So we all kill animals and humans and that's why your argument is crap. That is a lame response. Not at all; it's fact. It's a lame response, evasive little bitch angie girl. First of all, it's a logical fallacy - a _tu quoque_. Rather than address the legitimate accusation of hypocrisy against you, instead you attempt to accuse your accuser. That in no way exonerates you. Secondly, the basis for your _tu quoque_ fallacy is bogus. The human deaths and animal deaths are not comparable, as I have shown but which you have avoided addressing. Yet you keep trying your invalid defense. In what way? Every time you try your snarky, sophomoric _tu quoque_, angie girl. How? Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl. Where? Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl. We know what you're doing with your snarky, unserious questions, angie girl. Do you think you're "winning" by doing this? Winning what? Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl. You're winning I know. This is what I mean when I say you can't defend your phony "belief" in "ar". You don't really believe it; all you do is pay empty lip service to it. Which one? You're really a sophomoric unserious little ****, angie girl. But we knew that a long time ago. It's why you can't even *begin* to try to defend your incoherent pseudo-ethical beliefs. I have defended my position many times. You haven't, angie girl. You've done nothing but blabber away with snarky and sophomoric idiocy, regularly demonstrating your bad faith and lack of serious purpose. It's all you *can* do, angie girl, because you don't have the ability to examine your stance and defend it. It's not even a stance, angie girl - it's a pose. Why not? Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 23:28:08 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote: self-marginalized angie girl, demonstrating her complete lack of serious purpose, wrote: On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 22:08:03 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: self-marginalized angie girl, demonstrating her complete lack of serious purpose, wrote: On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 19:35:40 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: self-marginalized angie girl wrote: On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:35:34 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: self-marginalized angie girl wrote: On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 09:27:06 GMT, "Dutch" wrote: wrote On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:08:10 GMT, Rudy Canoza If animals had the same rights as humans it wouldn't prevent them being killed by our lifestyles - just as humans are - but some could be saved. Animals are not killed "just as humans are", not even remotely. They are for oil as in Iraq. They are not, evasive little bitch angie girl. The deaths are not comparable, angie girl, and you know it. Why? See my earlier explanation. Where? In the thread, angie girl. Which post. Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl. Why do you think it's cute to do that, angie girl? It demonstrates your bad faith and lack of serious purpose, angie girl. No it doesn't. Yes, it does, angie girl. But your mention of the human deaths is anyway a logical fallacy. YOU are accused, rightly, of needlessly participating in animal slaughter, and it won't do for you to point the finger at your accuser and try to redirect the accusation back at him. YOU need to answer for YOUR needless participation in animal slaughter, evasive little bitch angie girl. How? However you feel is appropriate, angie girl. You claim animal slaughter is wrong, yet you participate daily in processes that have animal slaughter as an inherent feature. Your abrasive condemnation thus makes you a hypocrite. Why? Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl. How? Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl. Animals are killed systematically, deliberately and in great numbers with very little effort to mitigate their suffering, except in the case of livestock. Human deaths are rare by comparison, and great efforts are taken to avoid them. Yes, we could save some animals from being killed, but there's no particular reason why we should choose to save the ones we use for food and other useful products. Lets have some specifics in detail. Let's have a meaningful question, evasive little bitch angie girl. Which? There's that snarky, unserious, sophomoric angie-girl bullshit again... In what way? Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl. How? Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl. You're contradicting yourself above. He didn't contradict himself at all, angie girl. Yes. No, angie girl, he didn't. Yes. No, angie girl, he didn't. Yes Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl. So we all kill animals and humans and that's why your argument is crap. That is a lame response. Not at all; it's fact. It's a lame response, evasive little bitch angie girl. First of all, it's a logical fallacy - a _tu quoque_. Rather than address the legitimate accusation of hypocrisy against you, instead you attempt to accuse your accuser. That in no way exonerates you. Secondly, the basis for your _tu quoque_ fallacy is bogus. The human deaths and animal deaths are not comparable, as I have shown but which you have avoided addressing. Yet you keep trying your invalid defense. In what way? Every time you try your snarky, sophomoric _tu quoque_, angie girl. How? Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl. Where? Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl. We know what you're doing with your snarky, unserious questions, angie girl. Do you think you're "winning" by doing this? Winning what? Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl. You're winning I know. This is what I mean when I say you can't defend your phony "belief" in "ar". You don't really believe it; all you do is pay empty lip service to it. Which one? You're really a sophomoric unserious little ****, angie girl. But we knew that a long time ago. It's why you can't even *begin* to try to defend your incoherent pseudo-ethical beliefs. I have defended my position many times. You haven't, angie girl. You've done nothing but blabber away with snarky and sophomoric idiocy, regularly demonstrating your bad faith and lack of serious purpose. It's all you *can* do, angie girl, because you don't have the ability to examine your stance and defend it. It's not even a stance, angie girl - it's a pose. Why not? Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl. See other post Angus Macmillan www.roots-of-blood.org.uk www.killhunting.org www.con-servation.org.uk All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed; Second, it is violently opposed; and Third, it is accepted as self-evident. -- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|